Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 November 21

= November 21 =

Economic conspiracy theories
I have noticed that some populist governors facing economic crisis, such as Nicolás Maduro from Venezuela and Cristina Kirchner from Argentina, do not try to correct the problems that caused such crisis, but blame them instead on the actions of some obscure imperialism trying to disrupt their countries to overthrown them and restore puppet governors, or to greedy merchants who raise prices just to increase their own benefits. Maduro even calls it an "economic war". Of course, that's all nonsense: if you increase money supply, you cause inflation, and if you try to control inflation with price controls, you cause shortages. Far from being the victim of a hidden conspiracy, the economic crisis in Venezuela is almost a textbook example of those economic laws in action. As far as I know, nobody except those governors and their most radical supporters really take those conspiracy theories any seriously.

Still, I know that it is all nonsense because I know how does the economy work in general. If I try to clarify in the specific articles that they are talking nonsenses (as Fringe theories would require), and cite some general purpose book about economy, I would be making WP:SYNTHESIS. Do you know about some source that discusses the latin american populism and this claim about economic conspiracies, and explains "this is wrong because national economies actually work as follow..."? Cambalachero (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The book An Economic History of the USSR by Alec Nove discusses parallel cases in the Soviet Union. For example, in 1926, state-set prices on various goods were too low relative to demand, yet in 1926-27 these prices were further lowered several times.  Nove mentions a decree of July 2nd 1926 "The reduction in retail prices of goods in short supply made by state industry" whose title "must surely seem unsound to even the dimmest first-year student of economics".  The resulting disruptions were used as an excuse to put an end to the NEP... AnonMoos (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Imperialism isn't a conspiracy theory. Definitely not something I'd have expected to hear from someone who lives in South America.
 * As for your concerns with synthesis, I think a greater problem you would face is the fact that economics isn't physics, it isn't an exact science. In fact, there's even a few dissidents in (relatively) mainstream discourse... → Σ σ  ς . (Sigma) 09:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Over the last five years, Venezuela seems to have been successfully screwing itself over, without need of help from imperialist conspirators. And there are many murky areas in economics, but also a number of empirically well-founded results, starting with Gresham's law.  In particular, valuing your country's currency artificially high will almost inevitably lead to either a draining of reserves, or (if controls on exchanging currency are imposed) corruption as exchange rights are politically allocated to a favored few.  See impossible trinity... AnonMoos (talk) 10:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, come on sigma, I wouldn't cite Al Jazeera if I was aiming to a good or featured article (in fact, I doubt I would ever cite them anyway). Al Jazeera and Al Jazeera do not let me consider them reliable sources. Yes, imperialism does exist, but it is not an all-powerful evil force keeping lesser countries in misery just for the heck of it, as their propaganda likes to tell. There are several counter-examples in South America that prove that the Venezuelan regime is not the only possible outcome. Even Evo Morales, who is an otherwise authoritarian populist, has a well organized national economy and there are no people rioting in the streets of Bolivia because of rampant inflation and scarcity of goods. Alec Nove seems a good author, but for russian topics; all of their works seem to be about that, and modern Venezuela is not related to the Soviet Union, which ceased to be some decades ago. Cambalachero (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that the author of the linked al-Jazeera article (Ewa Sapiezynska) is very earnest and well-intentioned, but she doesn't seem to understand that most people are self-seeking much of the time, and that the best solution is to arrange incentives so that such self-seeking behavior very often ends up resulting in productive economic activities taking place. (The main alternative to such incentives is totalitarianism.)  If in some country individual self-seeking results in destructive economic activities, it's not usually because people in that country are individually significantly greedier than people elsewhere, but because the incentives are perverse there...  State power is best used to create incentives which channel self-seeking into productive economic activities.  If instead state power is being used to create perverse incentives, and also to scapegoat and persecute certain categories of people who are taking advantage of such perverse incentives to enrich themselves, then I fail to see how that solves any problem.  AnonMoos (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Rape in the England and Wales Legal System
What does case law in England and Wales say about the scenario whereby a man and woman, both over the age of consent, have sex and are both drunk to the point that the man cannot judge whether or not the woman consents and is not aware that he cannot judge consent, and the woman to the point whereby she cannot provide consent and is not aware that she cannot provide consent? A naïve interpretation of the definition of rape (Sexual Offences Act 2003 Section 1) would suggest that the man is not guilty, but I would have thought that such a scenario would be something of a quagmire. Any ideas? I welcome any relevant comments that do not directly address the question. Thank you. asyndeton  talk  18:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * See Rape in English law, DPP v Majewski, Intoxication in English law, R v Heard, and this report from the Law Commission. See also DPP v Morgan for the pre-2003 position.  The critical issues are (a) did the accused have the "basic intent" to commit the act, and (b) did he have a reasonable (pre-2003, honest) belief in the woman's consent? Tevildo (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There was a fairly notorious case about 10-15 years ago involving two Univ of London students. The case was complicated by the fact that the two had previously had a (possibly casual) sexual relationship, also the two had BOTH consumed so much alcohol, that one was astonished that they could perform the act, as well as both having blurred memories and therefore it being uncertain whether consent was given. The man was initially found guilty (as I recall), but was acquitted on appeal, though I do not remember the grounds for acquittal. Someone else may remember the name of the man (the woman, I recall, retained her right to anonymity in newspaper coverage). Pincrete (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably R v Bree, although that was Southampton university. This is an article about the case from the Telegraph.  Tevildo (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Job end results
Why is it that in many jobs the end result of your work is not clear? Is it because in many businesses you're a small fraction of a huge team delivering something? Job satisfaction normally comes from seeing the end result but in many office based jobs, this isn't always clear. -- 18:56, 21 November 2014 82.132.246.244


 * There was a popular British song during WW2 about this issue. The chorus is:


 * "I'm the girl that makes the thing
 * that drills the hole that holds the ring
 * that drives the rod that turns the knob
 * that works the thing-ummy bob
 * that's going to win the war!"


 * The basic message being that even people doing obscure jobs were important to the war effort. (I think Gracie Fields was the "original" singer) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Why? Because a high proportion of managers have no idea what really motivates their staff. Patriotism during wartime isn't always available as an option. I make my comment as one who has been in many management jobs and was hopeless at it when I began. HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:WHAAOE - "The Thing-Ummy Bob". Arthur Askey's version is probably the best known today, but Gracie Fields also performed it. Tevildo (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Toshiba used the song for a 1992 TV advert in the UK, changing the last line from "that's going to win the war" to "that's going to make some more". Rather tactless for a Japanese company I thought. Alansplodge (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds like you'd enjoy this Armstrong and Miller sketch. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd love to enjoy it, but YouTube tells me "The uploader has not made this video available in your country". Mean HiLo48 (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Harsh. Try this one. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec)Indeed, communicating the overall strategic mission of the company to all staff and each one's role in achieving it, is not easy when companies become large and jobs are subdivided into increasingly narrow specialties. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

History of censorship in China
While reading this article, I was surprised to learn that not only is Nineteen_Eighty-Four not censored in China, but it was published there as early as 1976. Our article on Censorship in China has great coverage for the status quo of censorship in China, but is there somewhere where I can read about the historical degree of censorship in China? WinterWall (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Burning of books and burying of scholars... AnonMoos (talk) 04:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If that's true, it's probably because they consider it to be criticism of the West, and therefor OK for the public to read, not seeing the irony of it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Silly Chinese, why you no see irony? This is a reference desk, not a page to request Basball Bugs' idle speculation. 2601:1:9A00:AC00:5AB0:35FF:FE5D:A1F3 (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Nor your racist trolling. Use your real user ID, or go away. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Racist trolling? It's your comment that belies racism, implying, without any kind of reference (at the reference desk), that the Chinese are incapable of recognizing irony.  2601:1:9A00:AC00:5AB0:35FF:FE5D:A1F3 (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not "the Chinese", but the government of China. And your mock-Chinese "why you no see irony?" is the racist part. You're offensive. Go away. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Why, aside from unexamined racism, would you assume that a government, which manages a country of 1.4 billion people, would be incapable of understanding the subtext of a Western novel frequently read and understood by US high school students? It was your initial comment that was offensive, I was merely using sarcasm to point it out.  2601:1:9A00:AC00:5AB0:35FF:FE5D:A1F3 (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not finding much on the Web about pre-communist censorship in China, but the Britannica has a brief discussion of ancient Chinese censorship here, and China Heritage Quarterly reprints a chapter from Lin Yutang's A History of the Press and Public Opinion in China, dealing with censorship in the 1920s and 1930s, here. --Antiquary (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)